Woodford House

We assessed all the quality statements within the key question of safe. We found improvements had been made, however, there continued to be shortfalls and breaches of regulations. Potential risks to people’s health and welfare had not always been assessed. There was not always detailed guidance for staff to reduce and mitigate risk. There continued to be shortfalls in the recruitment process which had not been identified by the provider. Medicines had not always been managed safely. There had been improvements in staffing levels and staff training. Staff followed infection control guidelines and the service was clean. When accidents and incidents happened, they had been analysed to identify patterns and trends. Action had been taken to reduce the risk of them happening again. Safeguarding concerns had been identified and reported to the local authority for investigation.

We assessed all the quality statements with the key question of effective and found improvements had been made. There were now processes in place to assess people’s needs and involve relatives and people in reviews of care plans. Staff worked with other health professionals to make sure people received the most appropriate care and support. Nursing staff were supported to maintain and update their clinical knowledge. People were supported to make decisions about their care and support. Staff followed national guidelines when people did not have capacity to make sure all decisions were in their best interests. People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle and attend appointments with professionals such as the dentist.

We assessed all the quality statements in the key question of caring and found improvements had been made. People were now being treated as individuals, their rooms had been personalised and represented their interests. People were supported to be as independent as possible and decide how they spent their time. People were encouraged to follow their interests and keep occupied with activities. Staff were supported to fulfil their roles and people’s needs were responded to.

We assessed all the quality statements in the key question of responsive and found improvements had been made. People were now receiving personalised care from staff who knew them well. People had access to appropriate health professionals. People were supported to plan for their future care and decide what they wanted if their health deteriorated. People and relatives told they felt listened to and any concerns raised were dealt with quickly. Staff told us they worked to make sure people had the same experiences and outcomes as those who did not live in residential care. People received information in a way they could understand.

We assessed all the quality statements in the key question of well led. We found some improvements had been made, however, there continued to be shortfalls in the oversight of the service. Shortfalls had not always been identified. When shortfalls had been identified, action had not always been taken quickly to rectify them and keep people as safe as possible. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities but had not always followed processes to make sure they executed their role. Staff told us there was a positive culture within the service and they felt supported. Staff attended regular meetings and thought they worked well as a team. The management team displayed information about how to raise complaints and concerns. The service worked with other agencies to keep up with changes in guidelines and practice.